(06-01-2012 01:15 PM)kingschosen Wrote: This is starting to become a theological debate vs someone who doesn't believe in theology. I honestly don't have the fortitude to start another one of these.

Well, yeah. As an atheist, I view theology as a subject with no substance; an empty cassock. There's no 'there' there.

And, that's fine, if you don't try and argue from a theological standpoint.

I find it funny that atheists won't accept the Bible as a means of authority when debating a theists but will use it to counter against a theist but refuse to engage in a theological discussion about the aforementioned point.

Not sure what you mean; we argue that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God.
We don't engage in theological discussion, but textual discussion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Maybe the oppressed facts of Dark age totalitarian Europe where if you said different from the church you'd be killed. Look it up, it's very true!

These days facts and theories (scientific theories) become what they are through careful research and discovery and if there are changes there will be ever so little or there would be huge discoveries to advance the fact but the fundamental foundation of it is true.

Ah the Dark Ages. Did you know that that's a term rejected by most modern historians due to it's negative connotations? They weren't as bad as most people believe.

And as for the Church oppressing facts "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led." (Ronald Numbers)

The Church made numerous contributions to science during that time and the Renaissance was only possible due to the foundations laid down by scholars during that time period.

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis

Maybe the oppressed facts of Dark age totalitarian Europe where if you said different from the church you'd be killed. Look it up, it's very true!

These days facts and theories (scientific theories) become what they are through careful research and discovery and if there are changes there will be ever so little or there would be huge discoveries to advance the fact but the fundamental foundation of it is true.

Ah the Dark Ages. Did you know that that's a term rejected by most modern historians due to it's negative connotations? They weren't as bad as most people believe.

And as for the Church oppressing facts "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led." (Ronald Numbers)

The Church made numerous contributions to science during that time and the Renaissance was only possible due to the foundations laid down by scholars during that time period.

I don't think Galileo would agree.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(06-01-2012 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote: It was pretty conclusive, and other astronomers didn't threaten him with death or imprisonment. When the church had temporal power, they used it to the detriment of free thought.

Galileo didn't get super conclusive evidence for Earth round Sun afaik. He got lots of interesting results but didn't quite manage to prove it, although he *claimed* he had. It is a popular account, but reading Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel was an eye-opener into the attitudes of the church. This is what I remember of that book (could be wrong but generally right and I'm lazy to check faith based reasoning - I'm being infected ).

Basically Galileo was mates with the new pope when he published his book "Starry Messenger", attacking the theory that Earth is stationary. Two things: 1: He cast his mate the pope as the simpleton Simplicius who was the only guy in his 3 person dialog who spoke up for the current theory, and it was a recognizable caricature. 2: He *had* actually promised that he wouldn't publish on the subject or teach on it under the administration of the *previous* pope. Now yeah, that's the Church opposing free thought alright. But Galileo didn't just break his agreement, he *shattered* it, like a tit. His mate the pope's hands were pretty much tied as to what to do about it - he *couldn't* let the churches authority be challenged in such a blatant way, so Galileo had to be publicly humiliated - that's just politics. Add to that that Pope Leo was pretty pissed to be publicly known as the fool and Galileo was lucky not to get toasted. Galileo (idiot) thought he was in good with the pope so nothing would happen. Big mistake.

He could def have been a bit less confrontational - perhaps applied to the new pope for permission to teach/publish on the Copernican theory before just breaking the agreement. It *is* true that the Church tried to suppress the theory and a big hero-myth grew up around Galileo's opposition, which was probably not what they hoped for But they were just acting as any government with temporal power acts today when it feels threatened. And they did actually apply a bit of restraint - by the standards of the day Galileo got off really lightly. Others who went up against the church were not half so lucky.

The church opresses many things, its a simple fact. Unfortunately for Copernicus, he had to wait until after his death to publish his book to avoid execution. That says many things about the church and believing so otherwise is just being ignorant.

Now you may argue that why we can use the book against you but you can't use it against us. Well, because it leads to the heart of the argument that we can never resolve. The Theist believes the bible is the word of god. The Atheist asks why. The Theist responds: Because it says so in the bible. The Atheist asks again: How do you know it to be true? The Theist responds: Because the Bible is infallible. How do you know the bible is infallible? Because its the word of God.

Why do I always feel hollow when I receive that answer? If religion didn't exist until now, do you really believe some middle eastern hippie could walk on water?Would you really believe in a book that condemned homosexuality and promoted rape? Was in favor for Genocides, slavery, or women being second class citizens? Would you believe that now? Then why do you believe it back then? I understand the human race fears death so its a reason to cling to it. I also understand others can't take a leadership role in their lives and must follow others. The less fortunate are raised and indoctrinated.

Whatever your reason, if its beneficial to you, then I do not condemn it. I condemn religious radicalism of any kind and I don't believe you are associated with any part of it. I'm just telling you what I see of religion. I see the hate that so often wants me to burn for eternity. I see the anger that demands war upon others. I've never seen so much disgusting qualities erupt from anything else.

I've never liked what religion has become. I've unfortunately seen the horrors of it myself. It took lives I can never see again. I understand that you live with a belief that people are liberated from their bodies and enter the gates of Heaven or Hell but I do not. It saddens me when I think of them but I will not linger on it. I've always wondered if anyone could remain a religious man after seeing what it can do. The answer I believe is one cannot.

I'm not here to convert you. I'm here to give my reasons on things. As a humanist, I only want whats best for humanity. I do believe we have no purpose on this planet but we can create a purpose for ourselves. We do not need a deity any longer.

Now I apologize for rambling on and interrupting. Its 3:35 over here and I may have spelled things incorrectly. I also may have gone off topic.

I need to try to return to my sleep. Maybe God is cursing my Atheism with insomnia.

I'll pray to sleep well and then go take some night quil of whatever the blasphemous medicine science created and hope you all a good morning.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

“The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

(06-01-2012 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote: It was pretty conclusive, and other astronomers didn't threaten him with death or imprisonment. When the church had temporal power, they used it to the detriment of free thought.

Not entirely though. Not to mention the Tychonic system was a viable alternative at the time. In some small instances yes, but on a larger scale the Church encouraged free thought and scientific discovery throughout the "Dark" Ages.

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis